March 18, 2007

Sunday Morning Talk Shows, Dominated by Conservatives?

That’s what NY Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (DNY) is saying, according to an interview this past Friday. This trend was also echoed by James Rosen .

Slaughter bemoaned that even after the Democratic Party secured the majority of Congress, the trend hasn’t changed. Going further, she noted, “As trusted sources of information, Sunday morning news programs have an obligation to provide their viewers with equal representation from both sides of the political aisle,” Slaughter added. “A failure to provide balance is a disservice to the public and renders voters less able to evaluate the performance of our government. They deserve better.”

Well, let’s see how this pans out. In 2005 and 2006 many big names appeared all the time it seems on the Sunday shows. Keep in mind that the GOP held majorities in both Houses and had the Executive branch. A tally of the those that “Faced the Nation”, “Met with the Press”, Spent “Sunday with George Stephanopolos”, or tried to “Outfox Chris Wallace” shows:

Like this:

Related

Most republicans are fake, these days. Specter was grilling the fired US Attorneys and is now suggesting law that would make it much harder to fire US Attorneys, now that the Bush purge is final and all Bushies are in there. Specter may not be conservative or republican, but he IS a Bushie, despite his little tricks and smoke screens he puts up.

[…] process will drag on until I’m 80 years old. What else should he be doing with his time?Sunday Morning Talk Shows, Dominated by Conservatives? Meet the Press: New York Senator Chuck Schumer, former Maine Congressman Tom Andrews, an anti-war […]

Not really. It seems only reasonable that the majority party of both houses, and the one holding the excecutive branch would have more time with the press, the same was true during the Clinton Administration when they held all three sectors.

Since this season, the numbers have been very even, which is also fair. Also, consider that not a few Democrats won’t appear on FOX, which is as ridiculous as Republicans not being willing to appear on MSNBC, does tend to cut down on the numbers.

The Sunday morning shows have always been pretty even handed in their guests and the commentary, much more than some of the daily information shows.

Either the media should provide a balanced viewpoint, or it should just admit bias up front. Token centrists billed as liberals vs an array of right wing pundits is bias, pure and simple. There is nothing reasonable about it. If anything, it is the job of the media to always be “on guard” against whichever party holds power, and to be critical of all viewpoints.

Fox is hardly the same as MSNBC. There is a reason the Democrats stayed out of the debate. Most news organizations will respond to bias by saying “we get accused of it by both sides” (which is hardly a valid argument). Does anyone ever accuse Fox of having liberal bias? I don’t see why people still pretend it is a news organization.

Now, I don’t know who you are calling Centrist, as that is a matter of perspective. Certainly Sen. Specter and perhaps Sen. Biden are in that mold. Sen. Dodd is fairly progressive as is Sen. Leahy., Sen. Feinstein, and Sen. Schumer. Secretary Rice is obviously a different case as she is in an administration, and Sen. Graham would be considered Conservative along with Sen. Corryn. Don’t call Sen. McCain a Conservative around the hard right of the GOP, in fact, Sen. McCain is moderate with Hawkish views, and there is a HUGE difference.

Of the MSM, what they say is their own perspective, with regard to gettting it from both sides, but with regard to the commentators and hosts, as well as the Guests the page you site, just doesn’t fit the facts.

Your source, Media Matters, is hardly a non-biased source. Hey, we all bring bias, but I didn’t just fall off of the pumpkin truck. I’m not quoting from Right Wing Sources, and know a bit about bias in research as I am doing a dissertation. If you want to come along and cite a source, please make it a valid publication, and not from an Action Committee with an axe to grind.

I mean come on. This group was formed with help former Clinton Chief of Staff, Podesta, in his Center for American Progress, an organization that was created to hound “Conservative misinformation” – their words, not mine.

Of course your comments are always welcome, just come with valid data, and not as a spokesman for an action committee. Because PACS are just plain unreasonable.
🙂

Jason,
I have no idea what you mean by fake, but I’ll get past that. With regards to firing US Attorneys, maybe that should have been done when President Clinton fired all 93 of them. Now, that wasn’t politically motivated, was it?

Don’t get me wrong, the possibility of legislation may be an alternative, but I have no problem with what then President Clinton’s AG, Janet Reno did. These people serve at the pleasure of the President. Fair is fair.

Also, this is not “kiddy korner”. If you want to comment here, be polite and stay away from demagoguery. It is unwelcome here whether from the left or the right.

If you can handle that guideline, I hope to see you again, if you can’t, you won’t be missed.

If you follow posts on say, crooks and liars (very left wing), you’ll find Tim Russert, and especially Chris Matthews, maligned as right-wing. (There is no way Chris Matthews is left wing). George is interesting. I simply don’t have enough info to say anything one way or the other.

Senator McCain is, well, he’s not moderate. He is clearly not a clear cut religious conservative in the classical sense, but he definitely has taken strides from his moderate days towards Bush and a very neo-conservative worldview. He is no longer a real centrist.

Indeed, Media Matters does bring bias. I wonder if all bias is equal? We can dismiss valid criticisms this way easily, but at some point we need to judge the validity of the claims themselves. The problem with Fox isn’t purely their bias in and of itself, but rather the validity of their claims in conjunction with their bias and methods. For example, labelling pedophile republican congressmen democrats, or playing with Obama’s name.

Media Matters is surely a valid source, if only because their claims are valid. Bias may motivate what they tackle, but they tackle spin with an honesty and a rigor that organizations like Fox News lack.

Of course, your last comment is the most interesting. Must one always have data to make a good political argument?

On Jason’s comment, I think what he was getting at was that Specter goes along with Bush’s policies in the end, and merely acts as a convenient and soft opponent in a politically expedient way. Personally, I do think he occasionally plays the useful idiot, but on many occasions he does take meaningful stands.